1. ' By this order I will dispose of the application filed by the applicant under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act. Briefly the facts of the case are that the applicant was appointed on 1st March, 1960 in the Irrigation Department and was subsequently transferred to M. P. O. WAPDA en bloc and from there, his services were transferred en bloe to M. C. P., the present opponent, being the successor organisation of M. P.
0. WAPDA. The applicant was retired on 11th April, 1979 by the opponent-Organisation, who claims the following legal dues :- {{TABLE TEXT}}
(i) Gratutiy. Rs. 8,905.67
(ii) Provident Fund. Rs. 4,584.00
(iii) Encashment of L. P. R.Rs. 3,541.25 ' He also prayed for 10 times compensation thereon.
2. ' The opponent filed the reply statement and denied the liability of the claim.
3. ' The following issues were settled :-
(1) Whether this Court has the jurisdiction to try this matter ?
(2) Whether the application is maintainable in law ?
(3) Whether the applicant is entitled to relief or any part thereof ?
(4) What should the order be ?
4. ' The parties led their evidence. The applicant examined his Attorney while Mr. Rehman was examined by the opponent. The learned counsel filed written arguments. I have perused the record and arguments and my findings on issues with reason therefor, are as under :- ' Issue No, 1 : It has been contended on behalf of the applicant that since the applicant was employed as Driver in M. C. P. Workshop and the claim filed by him is with regard to the recovery of Gratuity, Provident Fund and encashment of L. P. R., which can be effected under section 15 Payment of Wages Act and Standing Orders. Ordinance, 1968, this Court having been conferred with the special powers under both the Statutes has the jurisdiction to try the matter.
5. ' He cited 1979 PLC 385 which was an appeal of the opponent-Organisation decide by the Sind Labour Court Hyderabad, where it has been held that this Court diction to try the matter.
6. ' The opponent side contended that since the applicant is not worker therefore this Court has no jurisdiction, while the contention of the applicant side is that for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court it is not necessary that the applicant should be a worker or workman, he referred me to the plain language used in section 1 of the Payment of Wages Act wherein the word "person" has been used, therefore the applicant is a workman or not, is immaterial.
7. ' With regard to the objection of the opponent that the applicant was not working in manufacturing process it has been contended by the applicant side that it is not necessary that a person should be engaged in manufacturing process in a Factory to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. He cited 1983 PLC (C S) 822.
8. On behalf of the opponent it has vehmently been stressed that the opponent workshop is not a Factory, but Annexure A/1 filed by the applicant, which is a certificate issued by the Inspector of Factories Hyderabad, shows that opponent concern is registered under the Factories Act.
9. ' In face of this document, the opponent unnecessarily attempted to prove otherwise through oral evidence, that its concern is not a Factory.
10. In view of the above discussion and direct authorities I hold that this Court has the jurisdiction to try the matter.
11. ' Issue No, 2 : ' It is the submission of the applicant side that admittedly the applicant was serving as Driver in M.
12. C. P. Workshop at the time of his retirement, and the opponent was making the monthly payment of his wages to him. The applicant being a workman under the . Factories Act and Workmen's Compensation Act, is therefore excluded from the purview of the Civil Servants Act even if it is presumed that he was declared to be civil servant. The applicant has claimed the legal dues in the nature of Gratuity, Provident Fund and encashment of leave, which are permissible under the provisions of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 and Rules of the Organisation. In his cross- examination the opponent witness has admitted the fact.
13. ' The applicant counsel cited 1979 PLC 388, in support of his contention.
14. ' In view of the above admitted position, I hold that the application is maintainable in law. Issue No, 3 ' It is admitted position on record that the applicant has been paid the Gratuity and Provident Fund by the opponent-above named, but according to the applicant it is less than his entitlement. The opponent witness admitted in his cross-examination that the gratuity is paid to the workcharged employee under the Standing Order Ordinance, 1968. The applicant side contended that applicant is entitled to the gratuity to be calculated on the last pay drawn plus all the allowances, as has been held by the Karachi High Court in a case reported in 1981 PLC 800.
15. He further placed on record a copy of the unreported judgment of the Sind High Court dated 4th December, 1984 in which it has been held that gratuity is to be paid at the length of service of the employee irrespective of the fact that he was subsequently covered into regular establishment.
16. ' In context to the above legal position aforesaid, the applicant is entitled to the gratuity which is calculated as under :- ' Length of service 19 years. 20 days per year=380 days at rate pf total emoluments per month Rs, 850 which comes to Rs, 10,766 Less already paid.Rs. 7,425 Balance payableRs. 3,340 'With regard to claim of Provident Fund, it is suffice to refer Exh. A/8, which is a letter issued by the opponent-Organisation, and according to para. 4 of this letter, payment of authority's contribution is contemplal-ted in term of the rules. The opponent therefore cannot take the stand that the applicant is not entitled to the authority contribution.
17. ' Own contribution of the applicant is admitted to be Rs, 2,743 and the opponent is liable to pay its contribution to the tune of Rs, 2,743.
18. ' The applicant has admittedly been paid Rs, 2,743 (2,292+451) therefore, he is only entitled to Rs, 2,743 as employers-contribution.
19. Regarding the claim of encashment of leave, I was referred to Exh. A/7. Which are leave Rules, and according to rule 14 the applicant is entitled to 180 days leave if refused. Exhs. A/4, A/5 and A/6 are the applications submitted by the applicant for sanction of leave. Exh. A/6 shows that was duly forwarded by his immediate officer. The applications for leave moved by the applicant have not been sanctioned which amounts to refusal.
20. ' In 1979 PLC 384, which was a case of one of the M. C. P. Employees (the opponent) he was allowed encashment of leave for 120 days and it was upheld by the learned Labour Court, Hyderabad.
21. ' At the time of retirement 125 days earned leave was at the credit of the applicant. He is, therefore, entitled for the encashment of the above leave.
22. ' The issue is accordingly answered.
23. ' The upshot of the above discussion is that the claim of the applicant is allowed as below {{TABLE TEXT}}
(i) Gratuity Rs.3,340
(ii) Provident Fund. Rs. 2,743
(iii) Encashment of leave.Rs. 3,541 Total Rs.9,624 ' The opponent is directed to deposit the amount of Rs, 9,624 (Rupees nine thousand, six hundred and twenty-four only) in this Court, within thirty days, for disbursement to the applicant.